300mm f/2.8 AF-S II or VR... optical upgrade or just addition of VR

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The "dpi" setting is entirely irrelevant for viewing on a monitor. Set it to whatever value you like. The setting is just a flag in the file header and won't influence the image data. The pixel dimensions however are crucial and if too large, might initiate a resize. If memory serves, anything larger than 1200 pix on the long axis will get resized for the ordinary page view.

Do note that even images linked from other web sites *will* be resized  unless one clicks to get the unchanged file.

Distance to background, processing, aperture used, structure of background, exposure, etc. all influence how the final image will appear. Too many variables are involved to draw blanket conclusions.

[John Koerner]

The 400 /2,8 FL is way better than both of these lenses

Yes, it is!
The new FL version is from another world 

Mmmm ... the 400 f/2.8 FL is better than the 300 ED VR II, yes.
But "way" better? Not according to actual measurements.

According to LenScore, the Nikkor 400mm f/2.8L is the 2nd-highest standing lens, quality-wise, over every other lens made by anyone (including every other Otus, except the 85mm).

The Nikkor 300mm ED VR II is ranked #11 now ... but the Top 10 lenses are actually all very close. (In some cases one is "better" than the other by only a few points.)

From reading the criteria at LenScore, their benchmark reference lens is the Nikkor 85mm 1/4G, which rates 1000 (considered an "A") across the board.
A score of 800 is considered a "B," a score of 700 is a considered a "C," etc.

The Zeiss Otus 85mm f1/4 is "otherworldly" ... and is rated #1 overall  with a total score of 1459 across 10 categories ...
The Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 FL ED a close second at 1427 overall.
(This is a mere 32-point score difference across 10 different categores, so there's a negligible difference of 3.2 points per category.)

Yet the Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 VR II isn't really too far behind the Nikkor 400mm FL ED, being up at a 1367 overall score.
That is only 60 points behind the 400 FL, across 10 categories, or a similarly-negligible 6 point average per-category overall difference, out of 100 points possible in each category.

These lenses are all way, way above the excellent "1000" mark, so essentially we're splitting hairs as to the superior quality of one over the other.
To show this, let's take a look individually at the 5 most important characteristics (keeping in mind, a score of 1000 is an "A"):

Nikkor 400mm f/2.8L FL ED
Resolution: 1456
Contrast: 1314
Color: 1119
Bokeh: 1684
LaCA: 1440
LoCA: 1677

As you can see, the 300mm f/2.8 ED VR II isn't too far behind:

Nikkor 300mm f/2.8L ED VR II
Resolution: 1320
Contrast: 1278
Color: 1077
Bokeh: 1566
LaCA: 1217
LoCA: 1650

By contrast, the 200-400 f/4 ED VR II zoom is a bit lower than these primes, but still a very high optic itself:

200-400 f/4 ED VR II
Resolution: 1174
Contrast: 1096
Color: 959
Bokeh: 1280
LaCA: 1157
LoCA: 1388


The 200-400 overall score, across 10 categories (again, click link) drops to 1167 ... which is 200 points below than the 300mm VR II overall ... which itself is only 60 points overall behind the 400mm FL ... making the 200-400 f/4 VR II 260 points below the 400 f/2.8 FL.

A nearly 300 point disparity is a pretty significant drop in quality ... though the truth is these all remain "A" quality lenses.

Jack

[John Koerner]

The pixel dimensions however are crucial and if too large, might initiate a resize. If memory serves, anything larger than 1200 pix on the long axis will get resized for the ordinary page view.

I noticed that, as my original images are 2500.

This is necessary to fit within the forum post-size parameters; otherwise the images would stick out and not flow with the size of the forum.

I will post smaller images to conform to the flow, thanks for the reminder.

[Andy]

A while ago Pierre Toscani had a great article in French on the 300mm lenses - now gone. If I remember correctly:

Differences between the first version of AF-S and the second AF-S Version:
Minimum Focus distance got reduced from 2.5m to 2.2m
Weight reduction of about 500 gr, due to the barrel made from Magnesium Alloy.

The first version of the VR, incorporated an image stabilization group in the rear elements. To improve agility, the weight of these elements were reduced from something like 60gr to 40gr (by changing the thickness and radii of the lens elements). One element in the optical axis is made from a different glass type than the predecessors (can't remember which one). The frontal protection element is a meniscus and not planar. Nano coating was introduced as well (on the exit surfaces of 2 lens elements in the third group)

The VR II differs to the VR I only in the management system of the stabilization group.

There is always the danger that VR can potentially degrade the image quality of a lens (besides it's obvious benefits). As the lens elements driven by the VR mechanism are basically driven outside the standard optical axis, those movements lead to temporary abberations in the system. IIRC, the VR system in the 300mm VR lens can compensate "Vibrations" of the optical axis of about 70mm at a distance of 10m, with a response rate of between 3 to 5 Hz.

About 45% of the overall lens weight is contributed by the glass elements.

On a side note, my guess:
Over time, Nikon was able to reduce the weight of the VR driven lens groups in modern lenses and/or find new and more stronger VR electronics to increase the frequency of the response rate of the VR system. That's why now modern VR systems can compensate for 4 f-stops, vs initially the vR systems could only compensate for 2 f-stops.

So, in a nutshell. My POV:
Your lens is still a great performer and the improvements of the VR II are in areas not relevant to your style of photography

rgds,
Andy 

[PedroS]

John, I'm not trying to convince you in any way...
Scores are what they are... scores. And they can be presented in different ways.
That said the 300 is behind 10% vs the 400.

I do not choose my lenses based on scores, but rather on my experience with them under my typical expected usage for each.

I do have both lenses, the 300 VRii and the 400 FL. And I can tell you that they are different, being the 400FL better, should I say much better? Maybe not, but better for sure, and visible in certain conditions.
The other important impact is that mighty 100mm of more reach is essential for birds (better yet having the 800FL - on wish list), and allows the 400 to be shooted naked in the majority of the situations, not with the 300. Normally I shoot this one with the TC14III. And then it comes another piece of glass in the equation, hurting badly the 300.

Nothing comes free, and the 300 is VERY "handable", not the 400. Yes you can, but for short periods.
So practical wise the 300 wins, IQ the 400 hands down.

[MILLIREHM]

Mmmm ... the 400 f/2.8 FL is better than the 300 ED VR II, yes.
But "way" better? Not according to actual measurements.

According to LenScore, the Nikkor 400mm f/2.8L is the 2nd-highest standing lens, quality-wise, over every other lens made by anyone (including every other Otus, except the 85mm).

The Nikkor 300mm ED VR II is ranked #11 now ... but the Top 10 lenses are actually all very close. (In some cases one is "better" than the other by only a few points.)

...
Jack

Dont misunderstand me. I compared the 400 FL against the 300 AF-S I and the 200-400 VRI which i all own personally. As Pedro i am not doing maths likel lens core but giving a personal impression, and the 400 FL made special impression to me. The 300 VRII might be closer in numbers, cant say whether how id wouldimpress me, but I guess the upcoming 300 FL will be somewhat better. The choice is depending on the planned usage of course.
the 800 FL is stellar, not as good as the 400 FL but more useful for my birds photography.

BTW: I keep the AF-S I because its a D-lens which was alsothe reason i preferred it over the II version

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I have used the 400/2.8 and 800/5.6 in their latest FL versions and the results are spectacular. That is, if you can overcome the issues caused by the poor tripod mounts of either lens, in particular the 800. This will of course be a non-existing issue for shooting in broad daylight, but the field of long lens photography extends to darker periods of the day or season.

I kept my trustworthy AFS 300/2.8 because it works well enough for my purposes plus it has an aperture ring, which I feel advantageous.  Its tripod mount is adequate, not perfect, but does the job. The optical quality holds up well with the TC 14-E Mk.2 and takes a hit with the 1.7 and 2X TCs.

In principle I could buy both the 400 and 800 lenses, but the limited use for me means the purchase isn't worth the significant expenses entailed. Better to get a loaner lens from Nikon Nordic for these limited occasions.

[MILLIREHM]

I have used the 400/2.8 and 800/5.6 in their latest FL versions and the results are spectacular. That is, if you can overcome the issues caused by the poor tripod mounts of either lens, in particular the 800. This will of course be a non-existing issue for shooting in broad daylight, but the field of long lens photography extends to darker periods of the day or season.

Understand that. I am one of this broad daylight shooters, but nevertheless replaced the tripod mount of every newer Nikon supertele that belongs to the G and E eras (though 400 and 800 are not as bad as the older 400/2,8 and the 600/4 was). Together with a Sachtler fluid head I expect the photography range extended to darker light conditions the upcoming shootings. On the other hand it is easier to handhold them as the precedessors.
Nikon also did some rationalisation. 400 and 800 FL have exactly  the same lens shade type and tripod feet which means that the front lens diameter of the 400/2,8 must have been reduced. They were not as rational to give the 400 the 52mm drop in Filter holder(CL-PL3 drop in Polarizer) the 800 shares with the 200/2 VR but rather a proprietary one


I kept my trustworthy AFS 300/2.8 because it works well enough for my purposes plus it has an aperture ring, which I feel advantageous.  Its tripod mount is adequate, not perfect, but does the job. The optical quality holds up well with the TC 14-E Mk.2 and takes a hit with the 1.7 and 2X TCs.
[/quote]

It is a good lens and it works with older bodies as well. I am a fan of lenses with aperture rings. For fast tele work dialing the aperture on the camera has some ergonomic advantages though

[Roland Vink]

Differences between the first version of AF-S and the second AF-S Version:
Minimum Focus distance got reduced from 2.5m to 2.2m
Weight reduction of about 500 gr, due to the barrel made from Magnesium Alloy.

According to my records, ALL the AFS models focus to 2.2m with manual focus. With AF the first version focuses to 2.5m, the later versions get a little closer to 2.3m. So in term of close focusing, the AFS II does as well as the current VR II version. I'm not sure why these lenses cannot AF all the way to the close limit.

[John Koerner]

There is always the danger that VR can potentially degrade the image quality of a lens (besides it's obvious benefits). As the lens elements driven by the VR mechanism are basically driven outside the standard optical axis, those movements lead to temporary abberations in the system. IIRC, the VR system in the 300mm VR lens can compensate "Vibrations" of the optical axis of about 70mm at a distance of 10m, with a response rate of between 3 to 5 Hz.

About 45% of the overall lens weight is contributed by the glass elements.

On a side note, my guess:
Over time, Nikon was able to reduce the weight of the VR driven lens groups in modern lenses and/or find new and more stronger VR electronics to increase the frequency of the response rate of the VR system. That's why now modern VR systems can compensate for 4 f-stops, vs initially the vR systems could only compensate for 2 f-stops.

So, in a nutshell. My POV:
Your lens is still a great performer and the improvements of the VR II are in areas not relevant to your style of photography

rgds,
Andy

Yep.

I have experimented with the VR, but 99.99% of the time, my camera lens is on a tripod.

I bought the lens because it is current and the lens qualities excellent, its weight manageable for long hikes, and I can get close enough to butterflies and such (~7ft) to get virtual macro shots.

I don't know about the VR I version, but the VR II is performs significantly better than the 300mm f/4.0D ED (and can take a 2x TC III).

[BruceLeventhal]

A while ago Pierre Toscani had a great article in French on the 300mm lenses - now gone. If I remember correctly:

Differences between the first version of AF-S and the second AF-S Version:
Minimum Focus distance got reduced from 2.5m to 2.2m
Weight reduction of about 500 gr, due to the barrel made from Magnesium Alloy.

The first version of the VR, incorporated an image stabilization group in the rear elements. To improve agility, the weight of these elements were reduced from something like 60gr to 40gr (by changing the thickness and radii of the lens elements). One element in the optical axis is made from a different glass type than the predecessors (can't remember which one). The frontal protection element is a meniscus and not planar. Nano coating was introduced as well (on the exit surfaces of 2 lens elements in the third group)

The VR II differs to the VR I only in the management system of the stabilization group.

There is always the danger that VR can potentially degrade the image quality of a lens (besides it's obvious benefits). As the lens elements driven by the VR mechanism are basically driven outside the standard optical axis, those movements lead to temporary abberations in the system. IIRC, the VR system in the 300mm VR lens can compensate "Vibrations" of the optical axis of about 70mm at a distance of 10m, with a response rate of between 3 to 5 Hz.

About 45% of the overall lens weight is contributed by the glass elements.

On a side note, my guess:
Over time, Nikon was able to reduce the weight of the VR driven lens groups in modern lenses and/or find new and more stronger VR electronics to increase the frequency of the response rate of the VR system. That's why now modern VR systems can compensate for 4 f-stops, vs initially the vR systems could only compensate for 2 f-stops.

So, in a nutshell. My POV:
Your lens is still a great performer and the improvements of the VR II are in areas not relevant to your style of photography

rgds,
Andy

Thank you for adding this detailed comparison. Having owned and used the 300mm AF-S version 1 back in the film and early digital era (F100/ D100 / D2h), I regretfully sold it when I moved to Canon in 2004. My affair with the white lenses ended in late 2013 when I acquired a 200-400mm f/4 VR1 for what was, at the time, a bargain price of $3000. The VR & IS systems rarely got use with my super(ish) telephoto lenses, and I always suspected that I took an aberration hit with the stabilization system. Interestingly, image quality varied even when the IS/VR was switched off. I suspect that in turning the system off, the shifting lenses did not always return to "home-base" in perfect alignment.
The sale of the 200-400mm lens was a good decision for me, as I missed the type of image quality and focus accuracy that I enjoyed when shooting the Canon 300mm f/2.8IS.
So.. why consider the VR 300mm f/2.8? There are two reasons, one of which has been mentioned a few times. My lens was discontinued in 2004. This is my main telephoto lens and I shoot a lot of wildlife. I have the ability to throw $3000 towards a replacement or newer optic, but not more. Second, I will be taking a 9 day trip with Brad Hill (a photo tour leader in Canada) on a sailboat in Northern Vancouver Island. Our primary subjects will be marine mammals and I will be shooting from the boat deck and from a zodiac. My wife uses a 200-500mm VR and I'll have my 70-200mm f/2.8VRII and my 300mm f/2.8... Because I have the AF-S II it is light and easy to shoot with just a little support (bean bag/pillow/etc...), but it lacks VR.

Regarding my lens... I actually love it. It is a vast improvement over the 200-400mm when it comes to maintaining AF with flying birds (just returned from shooting cranes at Bosque del Apache in New Mexico and trumpeter swans this morning in 4 degree F weather). The lens with the 1.4x and converter just works... I'll post examples later today. I don't want to sell/trade just for this one shoot with whales, but I don't want to be on a zodiac wishing I had VR.

Finally, with the $3000 sitting in reserve, I could buy a 500mm AF-s I or II in the US. I have never had the pleasure of using a lens like this and would love to add it my bag for shoots where weight restrictions are not an issue.

Ok... last point... I completely understand the appeal of the 400mm FLE lens, but this is way out of budget for a guy like me (a teacher/biologist). I love to shoot and travel. However, an $8000-$10000 expense on a lens is equal to another trip to East Africa or an adventure in Spitsbergen. I'd sooner put the money to getting somewhere exotic than a lens.

cheers,
bruce

[John Koerner]

John, I'm not trying to convince you in any way...
Scores are what they are... scores. And they can be presented in different ways.
That said the 300 is behind 10% vs the 400.

The scores are actually very valuable, because they break down (exactly) where each lens is stronger (or weaker) than the other.

And actually, according to measured numbers, the 400mm is only 3.7% superior to the 300mm overall.

In actual, measured numbers, the resolution is nearly 11% better, which I agree is significant, while the bokeh and LaCA the disparity are only 2% and 1.6% better, respectively.

That is the value that measurements and tests give to the viewer, a more reasoned conclusion than a subjective exclamation like, "it's way better" ...

The measured facts verify that the 400 f/2.8 FL is better, but the actual, measured overall superiority is quite negligible.

Even in the resolution, I am not concerned, because the 300mm is still sharper than a Zeiss 100 Makro and Milvus. That is pretty darned sharp.

I do not choose my lenses based on scores, but rather on my experience with them under my typical expected usage for each.

I think most people, before they spend $6000 to $13,000 read the scores, and every article they can, before buying.

The scores tell you in what areas to expect performance surges/deficits.

I do have both lenses, the 300 VRii and the 400 FL. And I can tell you that they are different, being the 400FL better, should I say much better? Maybe not, but better for sure, and visible in certain conditions.

That the 400mm FL is "better" was never in dispute. You said, "way better," and that is not accurate by actual measurements.

It is between -1% to 11% better, depending on the category. (The 300mm actually has less distortion.)

I personally didn't feel that an overall 3.7% superior design warranted more than double the pricetag.

I thought (and still think), mathematically, the 300mm is the better value.

The other important impact is that mighty 100mm of more reach is essential for birds (better yet having the 800FL - on wish list), and allows the 400 to be shooted naked in the majority of the situations, not with the 300. Normally I shoot this one with the TC14III. And then it comes another piece of glass in the equation, hurting badly the 300.

I do agree with you that the extra 100mm is important. I am not sure how this "hurts the 300mm badly," but I do see the benefit of extra reach.

This is why I use the 2x TCIII.

Your 400mm x 1.4 = 560.
My 300mm x 2x = 600.

I have posted the images I have been able to achieve with this combo, and I am confident they're fine images. Are they the max possible? No. Without the TC would be an improvement, but not that much.

Nothing comes free, and the 300 is VERY "handable", not the 400. Yes you can, but for short periods.
So practical wise the 300 wins, IQ the 400 hands down.

I would say, based on pure mathematics and measured numbers, at $5400 the 300mm wins "hands down" over the $12,000 400mm practically-speaking.

Whereas, optically speaking, with only a 3.7% overall measured superiority to the 300mm, the 400mm FL wins ... "barely."

I think the 400mm isn't a practical purchase compared to the 300 VR II.

For me, mathematically(practically)-speaking, I am saving up for the 600mm FL.

It is virtually-identical, optically, to the 400mm FL ... and while it, too, is also more than twice the price of the 300mm ... the justification is the 600mm gives me twice the reach to validate the doubling of the price

Jack

[Ilkka Nissilä]

the 800 FL is stellar, not as good as the 400 FL but more useful for my birds photography.

I haven't used either lens. The 400 FL would be fantastic to have but it's not possible for me given financial realities.

However, for what it's worth, in photographylife's MTF tests, the 800/5.6 FL scores a bit higher than the 400/2.8 FL in the center and especially in the corners.  I recall reading that he used flash to prevent vibration from affecting the test result. So these may not be what you see in the real world (without flash) but his findings suggest the 800 may actually be the sharper lens, for what it's worth. Of course, this takes no position in other image quality characteristics that the lenses may have.

What testing I've done of Nikon tripod collars led me to believe they design them to attenuate intermediate speeds such as 1/125s which may just be used for some living subjects but are at the lower edge of shutter speeds for that kind of use. A more rigid tripod collar can help with vibration at still longer exposure times  (e.g. 1/30s, 1/8s etc.) but is not as effective in dampening vibrations at 1/125s (this speed may depend on the lens). I've noticed this with two Nikon collars that I compared with more rigid third party alternatives.

[PedroS]

John, that's ok , I don't argue any more.

It's always great when someone is happy with camera gear.

[John Koerner]

Dont misunderstand me. I compared the 400 FL against the 300 AF-S I and the 200-400 VRI which i all own personally. As Pedro i am not doing maths likel lens core but giving a personal impression, and the 400 FL made special impression to me. The 300 VRII might be closer in numbers, cant say whether how id wouldimpress me, but I guess the upcoming 300 FL will be somewhat better. The choice is depending on the planned usage of course.

Optically, the 400 FL is quite high, much higher than either the 300 I and 200-400 I, so I am sure you were quite impressed.

The difference between it and the 300, while there, isn't as much of a gain. It's 3.7% overall gain in quality and its 33% added reach advantage don't justify more than doubling the price.

By contrast, the new 600mm, with a similar 3.7% quality increase, and doubling in reach, do justify more than doubling the price.

I would consider the 400 f/2.8 FL to be worth a more reasonable $7500-$8000 than $11,500.

The choice is depending on the planned usage of course. the 800 FL is stellar, not as good as the 400 FL but more useful for my birds photography.
BTW: I keep the AF-S I because its a D-lens which was alsothe reason i preferred it over the II version

Good points.

Other than the eye-watering price tags, the 600mm and (especially) the 800mm lenses are more "sit in a blind, and wait for animals" lenses.

Can't see too many people lugging an 800mm lens for a 6 hr. hike 

The 300mm is a more reasonable lens to hike with, being easier to manage and be moble with. The 1.4 and 2x TC give reach options, while keeping the weight reasonable (as well as the price tag).

I would bet ~90% of the people who use the 800mm aren't hiking mountain trails, but are sitting stationary shooting what comes in range. The 600mm seems like it might be (barely) manageable on a hike, but would also seem to better be served while stationary.

I am hoping to go on a safari in 2 years, for which my 300mm + D500 (1.5) + 2x TC (900mm) might not be sufficient.
The 600mm would give me the same 900mm reach on my D500, without a TC, while increasing the optic quality.
If I add the 1.4x TC, it will give me 1260 mm.

Meanwhile, my D810 could carry the 300mm (and give me 600mm if I use the 2x TC III.)

I would therefore be following "Rørslett's Rule" (lol) in having 300, 600, (900) and 1260mm available options with 2 cameras and 2 lenses (and 2 TCs).

I would also have a pouch carrying a 15mm and a 28mm for wide options, for landscapes ... as well as a 50mm for portraits ... and the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 for macro.

Sorry for "thinking out loud"

With that said, since this thread topic is about the 300mm, I consider it the most overall useful lens I have ever owned as a wildlife photographer. (It and the 28mm Ai-S.)